Ek2 Maker Marked..."j.ries"???

[Mike Kenny]

I think it's just somebody marking EKs to make them more interesting/desirable/expensive.

Hi George,

Either the above is true or some idiot collector is stamping his own name into items he's collected!! Stranger things have happened though, maybe it could be an unknown maker as the examples themselves seem to be OK. They are interesting but not something I'd pay a premium for because of the uncertainty factor.

Regards
Mike K

[George Stimson]

I'm sure that the EKs themselves could very well be okay. But I don't think that the marks are.

[VonLuger]

I know that Rick Lundstrom doesnt want to do this sort of research, but somebody with proper reference look for a J. Ries especially in the SS and the theory that it was post war mark , why not mark a bunch of ordinary crosses, sell them as having a soldiers name, to a bunch of people around the world for a higher price, they'll never run into each other-until now by coincidence and getting other samples via the internet......just another what if

[Tim Tezer]

Those of you who collect Imperial items may recall that J. Reis is the sculptor's name that appears under the bust of Maximilian Joseph on the Bavarian bravery medals. My guess is that somebody took J. Reis to be a maker of Bavarian bravery medals (he wasn't) and copied the name onto either fake EK's or maybe even legitimate unmarked pieces in the hope of raising their resale value. The spurious addition of makers marks to unmarked EK2s is common in Imperial awards, and probably in 3rd Reich as well, simply because many collectors will pay more for a marked piece.

Tim

[sven]

The EK2 is the first ever seen marked J.Ries that ive known, the EK57 marked J.Ries is the one bought off ebay there are NOT 2 knocking around so its only these two examples that i know of unless anyone knows different.

I can see the idea of them being marked up by someone to increase the value but woundnt they have done more than just the 2 ? why have not others cropped up yet?and why mark a 57 EK1 and not a real WW2 one. The 57 would never be worth half what a WW2 would be.

These are not questions to get you angry guys, i think its a real puzzel and i thought thats what the forum was for to expand all our knowledge.Thats why i posted them because i genuinely want help in understanding this.
If any One knows of any other items with this mark please post details as its just these 2 as far as i can see. I hope i get some helpful comments

[Rolf D.]

George,
Why are you getting so angry? There are just two, whether they are spurious or not?...I own neither so nothing comes my way out of this one, but we're here to talk about what it could be, not get angry at fellow members medals.

[George Stimson]

I'm not angry at all. I just feel that the marks are neither maker marks nor owner's marks. (It would take much more than that to get me angry! )

[sven]

When i first posted the ek2 on the site everyone seemed to think it was the awardees name and that the EK2 was a good medal . Ive now by chance found this ek1 57 on ebay with the same mark and now its all bad.

I dont like coincidence myself and there was no one more surpried when i saw the 57ek. I dont want to upset anyone on the forum by asking questions, all im trying to do is share what ive found and get help from people with far more years experiance than me.

[George Stimson]

I don't think that there's anything that anybody can say, really. People can speculate all they like, but at this point it's a mystery with no known solution.

[Glenn R]

To me it would seem a pointless excercise marking 2 such non descript crosses with spurious marks. Where is the extra profit in that? Surely we can accept the possibility that this mark is worthy of further research without dismissing it out of hand.

[George Stimson]

Okay, then, consider this thought. In both instances the "J. Ries" is in a location typical for maker's marks (i.e. the ring of the EK 2 and the underside of the pin of the EK 1). Do you think that the owner of a First Class cross would put his name in such an out-of-the-way place as the underside of the pin? Wouldn't they be likelier to just put the name on the reverse of the cross? If such is the case, I would surmise that both marks are intended as maker's marks and are not the name of the recipient.

[Glenn R]

I quite agree George. Do you see my point regarding the mark on the 57 EK1? It appears to be stamped as there is a shadow mark beneath it as if struck twice with the die.

[George Stimson]

And has anyone ever heard of maker "J. Ries"? For anything?

[Tim Tezer]

And has anyone ever heard of maker "J. Ries"? For anything?

See my post above.

[George Stimson]

I meant as a maker of anything

Okay, the name matches that of a sculptor. But is it a known manufacturer?